Guild Renown Changes

[twigzz]

I'll mention it again so people don't have to dig thru this thread().

Our guild consists of 7 accounts. 3 non casual, 4 casual(logs maybe 2-3 times a week and does little with that time aside from static). We are lvl63 and should hit 64 tonight. We get a 285% bonus to renown.

I'll add to my other post too.

[Dandonk]

You base you comments on how you THINK it works for large Guild without and actual experience.

Then when someone with actual in-game exerience on the topic posts first hand information from past experience, you retort with this? My actual experiences are wrong?

Sorry Dan, trying to debate this topic with you has become taxing and is like speaking to a brick wall and won't accept anyone else personal experiences.

Plese, continue to post on how you THINK things work in large guilds and continue to be wrong about it.

I wish you the best on your crusade. Good luck - you will need it all.

Well, you can try to talk your way around it all you want, but the mechanics and the stats from Vanshilar says it all. But thanks for sharing.

[Hendrik]

Ok here are my guilds numbers from the past few days. I'm gonna continue to record this too as these numbers are from 2 non casuals, our 3rd non casual has been away dealing with medical problems with his mother this week. I'm wondering what lvl we are gonna top off at.

Started Tuesday 12,864,709
Wed 12,928,810
Thurs 12,979,769
Fri 13,034,689


Sunday's are our 6 person static(if we all can make it), can't wait to see that number.

Our guild consists of 7 accounts. 3 non casual, 4 casual(logs maybe 2-3 times a week and does little with that time aside from static). We are lvl63 and should hit 64 tonight. We get a 285% bonus to renown.

Thank you twigzz for actual FACTS people can see all in one place. You are the only one so far BRAVE enough to do so and I respect that.

Looks like your getting about 50k+/- a weekday. Look forward to your weekend numbers.

Looks like you would plateau, if all things stayed the same, around 94-96. Not bad for a Guild of 7.

Adventure well friend!

[smatt]

[QUOTE=slarden;4855638][QUOTE=smatt;4855594]

This is kind of ridiculous coming from a person with 6,000 posts and all the ones I've seen simply ridicule people.

You have 10x more posts then me and I have 10x more decay than you so I think its' about even there since you have so much extra time that can go towards something other than covering decay.

I would like to see Turbine change the fixed account multiplier of 20 to 10 so small guilds can have a chance to keep their members and progress. It's competely consistent with their goals and is a much better solution than this first offering.

Yes, and all those posts are from an 74 month period..... On 1,000's of subjects.

As far as our decay... You see I'm in a guild that actually TRIED to and actually did recruit other players. Instead of complaining about everything.

But I know that's hard....

[smatt]

The mechanics of the system says YOU are wrong, sorry.

And as for comparative guild levels of small and large guilds, see Vanshilar's posts. Most enlightening.

So, sorry, but you're wrong.

Sigh..... You should actually learn what you're talking about on such subjects.... You've never been in a big guild have you? You've never even tried have you? You just want it all to "given" to you? Isn't that what it comes down to? Or do I have it wrong? You seem to want to sit back in yur little easy chair small guild and get exactly the same as what the people who work to organize and keep larger guilds rollign along.

Statisitcs are great, you can make them say whatever you want.

[slarden]

[QUOTE=smatt;4856075][QUOTE=slarden;4855638]

Yes, and all those posts are from an 74 month period..... On 1,000's of subjects.

As far as our decay... You see I'm in a guild that actually TRIED to and actually did recruit other players. Instead of complaining about everything.

But I know that's hard....

As I've said we don't recruit guilded players and most players are already in a guild or don't want to be in one. When it is natural for us we invite people to our guild we will, but we aren't interested in playing a #s game to appease you. There are people that enjoy building a large guild and spending their limited game time on this activity. I am not interested in recruiting during the limited time I have to play the game. To me this is something that occurs naturally without forcing it.

[smatt]

[QUOTE=slarden;4856124][QUOTE=smatt;4856075]

As I've said we don't recruit guilded players and most players are already in a guild or don't want to be in one. When it is natural for us we invite people to our guild we will, but we aren't interested in playing a #s game to appease you. There are people that enjoy building a large guild and spending their limited game time on this activity. I am not interested in recruiting during the limited time I have to play the game. To me this is something that occurs naturally without forcing it.

Then you should accept that ALL guilds were NEVER meant to be level 100..... The system was never intended to be that way... It never should be..... Just as all players were enver meant to play 50 alts.... Etc etc etc....

But hey.. You can keep asking for the free ice cream cone...

[Chaos000]

Do you suggest that when removing player X they are still put into active status but are also NOT counted in size calculations?

Just want to make sure we are clear and no misunderstandings with our thoughts.



Need to have a way so people are not using players for renown then just kicking them out when that goal is reached. Maybe the renown loss for player removal would be enough deterrent to quell abuse.

I am suggesting that size calculations do not decrease when a player is removed so that there still remains no benefit to mass booting to capitalize on size bonuses.

Example:

Guild of 10, guild size 10 bonus.
Guild of 8, guild size 8 bonus.

Guild of 10 removes 2 players, now guild of 8. guild size remains 10 bonus.
Guild of now 8 adds 1 player, now guild of 9, guild size 10 bonus.
Guild of now 9 adds 3 players, now guild of 12, guild size 12 bonus.

Guild of 12 removes 4 players, now guild of 8, guild size remains 12 bonus.

Under the new system the size bonus can only decrease. There is no long-term benefit to removing ANY players.

[Artos_Fabril]

Under the new system the size bonus can only decrease. There is no long-term benefit to removing ANY players.

Are you concerned that this might make small and medium guilds very reluctant to add new players who might not fit their guild atmosphere, while being no discriminator for guilds who have been above size 50 at any point?

[DocBenway]

The system was never intended to be that way

I Dare you to find a Dev post clearly stating the intention of guild levels. Ambiguity, non-communication, refusal to answer direct questions and when answers are given, they are impossibly vague and skirt the real issue posed by the question. <-- These are hallmarks of the guild renown system since its inception.

In a little over 5 weeks, it will be a year since I posted the still unanswered question as to why the minumum size of 10 existed. The wiki corrected their formula, player derived not dev divulged, shortly after, but never a word from a dev.

It has been asked by many, many times in this thread to have a clear, concise, easy to access and no hidden rigamarole, reference to the guild system. Here we are well over 100 pages in and STILL some guild officers and leaders posting have no idea how it worked before, now, or how they relate.

Get rid of it. You have already stealth increased ship prices behind the tag so why stop more people from paying the newly inflated shard ship prices? Just get rid of the stupid guild decline - putrefaction - decadence - rot - decomposition (Decay)

[Tshober]

Umm, OK. Was that the correct response to large guilds before?

No? I didn't think so.

This is revisionist. The problem with the old system was players who earned less renown than they cost in decay were not welcome in any established guilds. Active players leaving guilds that chose not to kick casual/social players was only a side-effect that provided even more incentive for guilds to kick casual/social players to try to prevent the actives from jumping ship.

[Chaos000]

Are you concerned that this might make small and medium guilds very reluctant to add new players who might not fit their guild atmosphere, while being no discriminator for guilds who have been above size 50 at any point?

Guild size bonus already makes small and medium guilds very reluctant to add new players. Increasing the size bonuses will only further the minimum activity requirement of players seeking to join despite the decline of decay (when divided equally among all the members).

Say for example all existing guild size bonuses were boosted by a multiplier of x5. If the new member being added could not reliably gain renown for the guild to offset the loss in size bonus, adding them no longer benefits the guild.

However, without this measure (removing player = no size bonus benefit) in place. It is now beneficial for some guilds to boot their least active members and gain a benefit of an increased guild size bonus by doing so.

[Nestroy]

I Dare you to find a Dev post clearly stating the intention of guild levels. Ambiguity, non-communication, refusal to answer direct questions and when answers are given, they are impossibly vague and skirt the real issue posed by the question. <-- These are hallmarks of the guild renown system since its inception.

In a little over 5 weeks, it will be a year since I posted the still unanswered question as to why the minumum size of 10 existed. The wiki corrected their formula, player derived not dev divulged, shortly after, but never a word from a dev.

It has been asked by many, many times in this thread to have a clear, concise, easy to access and no hidden rigamarole, reference to the guild system. Here we are well over 100 pages in and STILL some guild officers and leaders posting have no idea how it worked before, now, or how they relate.

Get rid of it. You have already stealth increased ship prices behind the tag so why stop more people from paying the newly inflated shard ship prices? Just get rid of the stupid guild decline - putrefaction - decadence - rot - decomposition (Decay)

The devs at least could finally admit that the whole system of renown / decay is for the sole purpose to make more money. But I am perfectly sure the current system is sub optimum for that purpose. And I am very positive about that the devs know this fact.

Even if Tshober calls me a revisionist now as well, I am sure the devs would like to return to the old system because of pressure from marketing and sales. But the devs can´t because of the sh*t-storm brewing then within the player base.

So they muddle through and hope for getting some time and much needed manpower to rework the system. Hopefully they read in here because in here are a lot of very good suggestions of what to do or implement to increase sales in the process without angering the player base.


Edit: I am a fan of D&D and D20, but I am not married to DDO. When the next generation of D&D games finally hits the market, I will give them a very thorough look, and if I like what I see there compared to DDO I will leave. And the current guild renown sysrem is a very special point I will put my emphasis on when deciding if I switch or not.

[Dandonk]

Sigh..... You should actually learn what you're talking about on such subjects.... You've never been in a big guild have you? You've never even tried have you? You just want it all to "given" to you? Isn't that what it comes down to? Or do I have it wrong? You seem to want to sit back in yur little easy chair small guild and get exactly the same as what the people who work to organize and keep larger guilds rollign along.

Statisitcs are great, you can make them say whatever you want.

I'll thank you to not talk about small guilds, then.

I don't want anything given to me, please don't think that. I just want a fair system - level with large guilds. That's all. I do not believe that's evil.

[Artos_Fabril]

Guild size bonus already makes small and medium guilds very reluctant to add new players. Increasing the size bonuses will only further the minimum activity requirement of players seeking to join despite the decline of decay (when divided equally among all the members).

Say for example all existing guild size bonuses were boosted by a multiplier of x5. If the new member being added could not reliably gain renown for the guild to offset the loss in size bonus, adding them no longer benefits the guild.

However, without this measure (removing player = no size bonus benefit) in place. It is now beneficial for some guilds to boot their least active members and gain a benefit of an increased guild size bonus by doing so.

I was referring to the situation that I have observed in every guild I've been in, in every MMO I've played wherein a player is invited to join the guild on a trial basis during which trial guild member are encouraged to group with them and provide feedback on what sort of a player that person is. This reveals a lot more about the player than even the standard 3+ unguilded trial runs, such as a payer who constantly asks for special treatment in guild chat or is unwilling to contribute as much as they request (within the limits of their capability, of course).

Under your proposal, guilds that have topped 50 accounts at any time can offer this trial period, while guilds of fewer than 50 players, unless they have previously lost players, have a strong disincentive to adding any member on a trial basis.

I understand where you're going with the idea, I just think you haven't considered the downsides thoroughly.

I'll thank you to not talk about small guilds, then.

I don't want anything given to me, please don't think that. I just want a fair system - level with large guilds. That's all. I do not believe that's evil.

The "fair system" you seem to me to want is one in which guild level is independent of effort. It takes more effort to coordinate a large guild than a small one, yet you feel the the contribution of each member of a large guild is worth less than that of members of a small guild because there are more of them. You declare that a system in which each person brings a burden that others must carry if they can't manage it themselves is more fair than a system in which the total burden shared by many people is the same as an equal burden shared among few people. Essentially, you are arguing that the only measure of equality is equality of condition, and that equality of opportunity is not truly "fair". You also seem to be attempting to minimize the effort it takes to coordinate a larger group of people by advocating the elimination of any consequent benefit for doing so.

If, in fact, your goal is the elimination or reduction of decay and not a punitive retribution against large guilds, you should articulate that rather than attacking large guilds for the benefits of a division of labor while denying the preferential treatment already accorded to your chosen guild type that were introduced to flatten the system from the beginning.

I feel that I understand the reason for the small guild bonus, and I support the elimination or reduction of decay across the board, but your adversarial tone provokes an adversarial response, bringing you into conflict with other posters, and detracting from the discussion at hand.

[slarden]

I was referring to the situation that I have observed in every guild I've been in, in every MMO I've played wherein a player is invited to join the guild on a trial basis during which trial guild member are encouraged to group with them and provide feedback on what sort of a player that person is. This reveals a lot more about the player than even the standard 3+ unguilded trial runs, such as a payer who constantly asks for special treatment in guild chat or is unwilling to contribute as much as they request (within the limits of their capability, of course).

To me this is one of the reasons I would like to see a 100% penalty for booting players. If you take a player in and then they aren't contributing enough by your defintion you will boot them and keep 75% of the renown.

It also highlights an issue that Nestroy brought up which is that those of us in small guilds spent significant time working on these guilds are now in an environment where large guilds can advance easily but small guilds can't when Turbine initially made statements that the system was designed to be fair to small guilds.

Now if we leave our guild to go to another guild, our guild takes a massive renown hit. If we then join a guild and they don't like us for whatever arbitrary reason, they can just drop us and keep 75% of the renown we earned and we are guildless.

As for your other comment about small guilds wanted things handed to them without any work, that is ridiculous. We don't want to have our guild members renown taken away from them at a rate 10x higher than would occur if they are in a large guild.

It's fine that it takes longer for us to level up, but we don't want an excessive daily penalty on top of that which requires our members to to zerg to earn enough renown to cover decay.

There is a difference between "work" and "penalty". We would like to see the penalty reduced. Speifically I would like to see the fixed decay multiplier reduced from 20 to 10 - that woul give small guilds a lot of relief while remaining consistent with all of Turbine's objectives.

[Blue100000005]

sorry for my ignorance, but i thought the renown decay was based solely on level of the guild and not the members. if this is true why is anything else about size and decay being said?

[smatt]

I Dare you to find a Dev post clearly stating the intention of guild levels. Ambiguity, non-communication, refusal to answer direct questions and when answers are given, they are impossibly vague and skirt the real issue posed by the question. <-- These are hallmarks of the guild renown system since its inception.

Oh it was said at one time a few months into the guild ship system by a Dev. that they NEVER intended the system to support each and every guild havign the ability to lvl 100. Do I care if YOU believe me.. No... Am I going to search back 3 years? No There's onyl a certain type of person that worries about such things... And I'm not that type.

In a little over 5 weeks, it will be a year since I posted the still unanswered question as to why the minumum size of 10 existed. The wiki corrected their formula, player derived not dev divulged, shortly after, but never a word from a dev.

It has been asked by many, many times in this thread to have a clear, concise, easy to access and no hidden rigamarole, reference to the guild system. Here we are well over 100 pages in and STILL some guild officers and leaders posting have no idea how it worked before, now, or how they relate.

Get rid of it. You have already stealth increased ship prices behind the tag so why stop more people from paying the newly inflated shard ship prices? Just get rid of the stupid guild decline - putrefaction - decadence - rot - decomposition (Decay)

[Chaos000]

Under your proposal, guilds that have topped 50 accounts at any time can offer this trial period, while guilds of fewer than 50 players, unless they have previously lost players, have a strong disincentive to adding any member on a trial basis.

I understand where you're going with the idea, I just think you haven't considered the downsides thoroughly.

A guild could designate one or two slots for "trial members."

While they cannot regain the bonus by removal of a trial member, they will not experience a decline in bonus due to size when going back up to the size they previously expanded out to.

Example: A guild has 24 members but 13 of those players have quit the game and have not played for 6 months. Removal of those players will not decrease the guild size. Adding less than or up to 13 members will have no affect in raising the guild size.

As slarden has pointed out, math has shown that it is always more beneficial to add then to remove.

[Hendrik]

I am suggesting that size calculations do not decrease when a player is removed so that there still remains no benefit to mass booting to capitalize on size bonuses.

Example:

Guild of 10, guild size 10 bonus.
Guild of 8, guild size 8 bonus.

Guild of 10 removes 2 players, now guild of 8. guild size remains 10 bonus.
Guild of now 8 adds 1 player, now guild of 9, guild size 10 bonus.
Guild of now 9 adds 3 players, now guild of 12, guild size 12 bonus.

Guild of 12 removes 4 players, now guild of 8, guild size remains 12 bonus.

Under the new system the size bonus can only decrease. There is no long-term benefit to removing ANY players.

Thank you!

Examples help understand what is meant.

Excellent idea! Do you think this idea, in conjunction with a small increase to Guild Size bonus would pretty much eliminate nearly all issues? Real or perceived.